Rnm4;
While you may think I'm confused, I think you are incorrect.
I appreciate the difference between policy and theory. Eugenics, as espoused in the early 2oth century, was both. The THEORY was that selective breeding could produce progressively superior human stock. Every undesirable trait in humans could be bred out, desirable traits bred in. The POLICY was, well, the justification for involuntary sterilization and later the genocide of homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, and ultimately, Jews of any description whatsoever.
Disagree with me on that if you will, I respect that.
What I find offensive however, is this statement of yours:
"The resonance"deniers" makes with holocaust discourse is not unintentional; the cases are not identical, but that doesn't mean the resonances shouldn't be pointed up".
At the risk of sounding rude, I have to ask you if you have any idea what you're talking about?
There is absolutely no relevance between the two issues, and if you find any resonances whatsoever you need to learn considerably more about the Holocaust. The fact that you make the comparison intentionally is stunning, and franky proves my point regarding the near religious zealotry of this movement. To equate people like me with those who deny the Holocaust is arrogant and insensitive.
You are falling in with a dangerous lot: people who question the morals and intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
I'm neither immoral or unintelligent: I am a believer that the human contribution to global warming is MUCH less than many scientists currently believe it is.
Nothing more, nothing less.
